On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:20:25PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Thu, 3 Mar 2011 12:51:51 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:16:45AM +0100, Dirk Eibach wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Dirk Eibach <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ads1015.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > > 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ads1015.txt > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ads1015.txt > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ads1015.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..3a7d67a > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/ads1015.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@ > > > +ADS1015 (I2C) > > > + > > > +Optional properties: > > > + > > > + - exported-channels : exported_channels is a bitmask that specifies > > > which > > > + inputs should be exported to sysfs. > > > > Hmm, device tree bindings should be OS-neutral, sysfs is not. > > Why do we document this in the Linux kernel tree then?
Lack of a better place and process for documenting and reviewing bindings. I've been toying with moving device tree bindings out to devicetree.org, but I don't have a good review model for that. I might end up splitting it out into a separate git repository. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
